Hey Nemo- if you want me to understand your points and accept your arguement, please talk to me in a mature and calm way. I don't need to be harrased because I stated something invalid. Lets be mature.

The new members have not even answered the original question of what to do about gay marriage (state or federal issue). And who the heck brought up beastiality?

I am starting to see Orborde's point about debating "everything under the sun" under one topic.

I couldnt agree more.

For me, it's simple. I think that individuals should be able to marry whomever they please. The relationship is not mine, therefore, I have no right to regulate it. I do not believe in the flaunting of "gay" OR "straight" affection in public. Beyond that, it doesn't concern me.

I don't understand why people feel the need to "regulate" others, then claim that they have no right to be "regulated". The world is not black and white. Marriage is marriage is marriage. I do not support anyone denying someone that right. As to state vs. fed's --- I'm at a gridlock. What do you think?

Stealing, decieving, adultery; this is defilement. Not the eating of meat. -SUTTA NIPATA 242-

Federal Essyne. Why should a gay have to travel clear across the country just to get married. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to go to Alaska just to get across the street. Make it LEGAL in all states. It's only fair that way, for straights and gays.

I agree. After giving it further thought, I understand where the "state" supporters are coming from; however, a federal law is (in my newfound opinion) the only way to go. I would wish that marriage and taxes could be the same : ONE rule for EVERYONE, regardless of what "bracket" you fall under.

Stealing, decieving, adultery; this is defilement. Not the eating of meat. -SUTTA NIPATA 242-

It kind of falls under both. The 14th Amendment states that states must protect the rights of all Americans. Therefore, it is up to the states to make the laws allowing gay marriage; meanwhile the federal government must enforce the amendment should there be states resisting, as there are.

Of course this entire argument is invalid if one does not believe marriage is a basic human right (gays are humans). It is much like one who thinks using scripture to back up his argument is valid, when religion is not fact or law.

I would give an argument as to why gays deserve this right, but this is not the correct topic, and we have already strayed off course once.

Also Facist, do you truly believe that the sacred love between two men or two women is the same thing as loving an animal? Do you truly believe a man or woman to be no better than animals? They are just as intelligent, compassionate, and resourceful as your average human being. They are not mindless creatures driven by instinct alone.

Edit: WOW I just said I wouldn't go off topic and there I went off topic on my last paragraph. I apologize, but I am going to leave it up anyway. Guess I'm an ass.

One who is injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be right to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to do evil to any man, however much we have suffered from him. -Socrates

After reviewing your relation between the two, I find it reasonably appropriate. You were not claiming it to be a slippery slope; you were just saying that loving alone is not proof of being right.

Am I correct in this understanding of what you are saying?

One who is injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be right to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to do evil to any man, however much we have suffered from him. -Socrates

That's basically the gist of it. I would never compare homosexuality to bestiality. I was referring to this line:

Do you truly believe a man or woman to be no better than animals? They are just as intelligent, compassionate, and resourceful as your average human being. They are not mindless creatures driven by instinct alone.

Animals, as we know, are driven by instinct alone. Now, many pro-homosexual people argue that animals exhibit homosexual behavior, and claim that somehow this is grounds for claiming why homosexuality is right/natural.

I was making the point that since we are human, I would hope that we do NOT exhibit similar behavior as animals (as you said, not simply act off of instincts) and instead be held to a higher standard than that.

I think that people who argue that are not looking at it as a base behavior of animals, but rather they argue it is proof that, being mindless animals, homosexuality is something encoded in a being's DNA and hormone levels, and it is not a choice.

They (we) believe it may not be what is "supposed" to happen genetically, but it is something that happens genetically, and it is not a disease. In order to support this claim, the relation to animals committing the same acts is brought up.

One who is injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be right to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to do evil to any man, however much we have suffered from him. -Socrates

dimmick @ Jan 9 2007, 02:01 AM wrote:It should be up to the states to decide, due to wildly varying opinions on the matter that correspond fairly closely to the red state/blue state divide.

The only problem I can think of with the States deciding if it should be legal or not is the issue of 'what if a gay couple marries in a State where it is legal, but moves to a state where it's illegal?' There may be some sort of legal solution already established here, but I'm unaware of it. Does this remind anyone else of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 or the Dred Scott case / "once free, always free" debate on slavery?

In any case, I agree with Essyne when he says:

I don't understand why people feel the need to "regulate" others, then claim that they have no right to be "regulated". The world is not black and white. Marriage is marriage is marriage. I do not support anyone denying someone that right.